Fort Fairfield Journal About Us Contact Us Advertising Rates Subscribe Distribution Bible Reference Our Library
From the Editor
Mass Deception - A Reader Responds
"Dave, you are ignorant and narrow-minded.”
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal
July 27, 2011
In my editorial in last edition of FFJ I raised some points about the “official” story on 9/11. A few days after the paper came out, I received a very irate phone call from someone who said his name was James, and claimed to be “an aeronautical engineer from the West coast.”
James instantly went into a tirade about my comments on 9/11 and demanded I print a correction to my statement that kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel. James demanded; “Kerosene does burn hot enough to melt steel!” When I countered with, “Then why don’t kerosene heaters melt?” James was unable to hear me because he was too busy chattering about me being “ignorant” and “narrow-minded.”
When I told him I thought it was narrow-minded to accept the government’s and mainstream media’s story as the truth without asking any further questions or doing any further research, James simply said he didn’t know why “they” would allow an ignorant and narrow-minded newspaper to be published.
I’m not sure who the ubiquitous “they” were that James was referring to, but I reminded him that in this country anybody has the right to publish a newspaper without permission. He then retorted, “then that’s the problem, anybody can write a newspaper.”
As he continued on about how ignorant I was and how narrow-minded the Fort Fairfield Journal was, I told him this conversation is going nowhere, said good-bye and hung up. Total time duration of the phone call: sixty seconds, which is above average for the amount of time I’m willing to expend on critics who are coming at me with nothing more than derogatory names and insults.
James made a statement that he was an aeronautical engineer. He then demanded I print the “truth” that kerosene does burn hot enough to melt steel, but offered nothing to support his position; no facts, science, physics, math or reports. All he did was resort to name calling and derogatory remarks; hardly a successful tactic at convincing people to come over to your camp.
I have debated with hundreds of people over the past seven years; some smart, some not so smart. What I have learned after all those hours of debate is that a person who is unable to support their position with objective, verifiable facts always resorts to name calling in an effort to bring his/her opponent down. While that method of argument may be entertaining for Bill O’Reilly and his adolescent-level cohorts on FOX “News”, I live in the grown-up world where facts, science, mathematics and physics are required to rebut a statement, especially one as serious as 9/11.
James was also curious why I was even allowed to write a newspaper. He must have missed his Civil Rights team’s analysis of our rights as encoded in the Bill of Rights, or his Civil Rights team was too busy teaching not to bully or call people names. He must have missed that class, too.
At any rate, I have to address this problem of kerosene and steel so, let’s see if we can find some facts to support James’ statement, “kerosene does burn hot enough to melt steel.”
Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 2,720 °F, and is completely liquid upon reaching 2,802°F. Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 2,066 °F, and is completely molten upon reaching 2,400°F. 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel)
The open air burning temperature of aircraft grade kerosene, Jet A-1 fuel, is 500°F to 599°F. The maximum burning temperature of jet fuel is 1,796°F.
So, with the lowest melting point of steel starting at 2,066° F and the highest burning temperature of jet fuel at 1,796°F, James has a problem.
I do know there are many parts inside of a jet engine that are made out of titanium, which has a higher melting point than steel, because of the extreme temperatures and pressures. Perhaps through some process I’m not yet aware of the temperature inside the combustion chamber of the engine, with a perfect fuel/air mixture can melt steel. I don’t know. The “aeronautical engineer” who could have answered that question simply could not get past calling me names long enough to discuss facts.
Now, let's make pretend the government's fairy tale about jet fuel burning hot enough to melt, or even seriously weaken the structure of the buildings was true, or presume that jet-grade kerosene under optimum conditions inside a controlled combustion chamber could melt steel. Let's look closer at what we actually saw on 9/11.
When a fire is burning at less than optimum efficiency, it is burning very “cool” which leads to a lot of smoke. You will notice this when the carburetor on your car is calibrated incorrectly—black smoke out of the tailpipe. When you first light a fire in your wood stove, a lot of smoke goes up the chimney until the fire gets up to temperature, then you notice hardly any smoke at all.
On 9/11 we all watched a dark, black, sooty smoke billowing from both of the World Trade towers. This indicated a very slow burning, inefficient, “cool” fire. There were even people waving for help from the gaping hole the airplanes created. So, hardly a fire hot enough to structurally weaken steel. Audio tapes of firefighters’ radio contacts released from that day have one firefighter witnessing the fire from inside the building saying there were “two isolated pockets of fire” and requesting “two lines” to knock the fires out. Again, hardly a raging inferno hot enough to melt, or structurally weaken steel.
Most of the jet fuel from the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center towers exploded in a fireball outside the buildings, on impact. The rest mixed with paper, cardboard, fire-treated carpeting, sheetrock, ceiling tiles, etc. and at best was burning under “open air” conditions, which is between 500°F to 599°F, as previously cited—a far ways away from the actual melting point of any type of steel.
Also, when one considers the 1975 fire that raged in the North WTC tower for 3½ hours like a “blow torch” and moved between floors, it is very interesting that the steel then did not get hot enough to collapse. I even referenced the New York Times article and gave the link to it in my editorial. I’m not sure if James followed up on that link, though, so I’ll cite it again:
The government has trained most people to have the knee-jerk reaction to call anyone who doesn’t agree with government’s “official” story on anything a “conspiracy theorist.” However, the points I raise here are not theories, they are facts. The melting points of various types of steel aren’t theories, they are facts. That fires smoke profusely when starved for oxygen isn’t a theory, it is a fact. The government’s story simply cannot be corroborated with known facts—and that is no “theory” at all.
Given television’s ability to hypnotize viewers with the screen flicker rate and the likelihood television “news” organizations are employing subliminal messaging systems such as Silent Sound Spread Spectrum on their viewers in order to sell the government’s agenda, I can see where people like James can so adamantly support the government’s propaganda without any independent thoughts of their own. It is sad and unfortunate that today’s society is incapable of independent thought because it has been programmed out of them, but hopefully there will be a few who fall through the cracks and are able to see past government propaganda long enough to do two minutes worth of research (that’s how long it took for me to find the melting point of steel and burn temperature of jet fuel) and ask critical questions to challenge government’s “official” version of reality before we spend another untold trillions of dollars fighting useless wars and advancing an East German style police state under the guise of “freedom and security” in the future.